MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2157820541 · doi:10.1139/x2012-093

Forest floor depths and fuel loads in upland Canadian forests

2012· article· en· W2157820541 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
D.L. Letang, William J. de Groot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersUniversity of TasmaniaMcGill University
KeywordsForest floorEnvironmental scienceForest managementForest inventoryForestryForest structureAgroforestryEcologyGeographySoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest floor data are important for many forest resource management applications. In terms of fire and forest carbon dynamics, these data are critical for modeling direct carbon emissions from wildfire in Canadian forests because forest floor organic material is usually the greatest emissions source. However, there are very few data available to initialize wildfire emission models. Six data sets representing 41 534 forest stands across Canada were combined to provide summary statistics and to analyze factors controlling forest floor fuel loads and depths. The impacts of dominant tree species, ecozone, drainage-class, and age-class data on forest floor fuel loads and depth were examined using ANOVA and regression. All four parameters were significant factors affecting forest floor fuel load and depth, but only tree species and ecozone were substantially influential. Although forest floor depths summarized in this study are similar to those of previous studies, forest floor fuel loads are higher. Average forest floor fuel loads and depths are summarized by species and ecozone and can be used to initialize dynamic stand-level forest models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→